Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EComXpo (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eComXpo

Tagged as {{db-repost}}, which it isn't, but there are still some advertising concerns. Unfortunately only two other editors other than the nominator spoke up in the previous nomination, so the question remains: is this notable enough to stick? RFerreira 06:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article is referenced by reliable sources. Moreover, a quick google search shows up thousands of hits for this online virtual trade show. The article is also easily being verified as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources are WP:RS, all are web-only publications connected to the industry, blogs and/or press releases. No secondary source verification is forth coming either, in lieu of reliable primary sources. I have no idea how you can state there is verification and reliability. Thanks! --Cerejota 08:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

To give an idea of how unreliable the google notability test is when dealing with companies, I perfomed the same search excluding besides wikipedia, youtube, all of the associated websites to this company, the microsoft ad syndication site, prweb.com, and some other random sites that are obvious paid or unpaid ads (like what this article is)and came up with a bit more than 11,000 hits, from the 54,000 originally[1] this an incredible difference with just a few sites included in the exceptions. Just excluding the few directly associated sites reduce the number by more than 20,000 hits! Unfortunately for eComXpo, wikipedians also happen to have first hand knowledge in SEO, and hit bloating, some of us probably invented the techniques you are using, so we catch it. Thanks!--Cerejota 09:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per Siva1979. Note: I created the article again without being aware of the fact that it was previously deleted. I also asked repeatedly other editors who indicated that they don't like the tone of the article ("advert") to make modifications to the article to tone it down. I asked for help, because I don't see it written an advertisement. Notability within the subject of affiliate marketing is IMO out of the question. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the sources is your own page, two are press releases... man, talk about WP:COI...--Cerejota 08:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI? Since when is using something WP:COI? I have no personal or professional gain from the article in Wikipedia, nor am I particular biased regarding this conference. Regarding press releases. Do you know how press releases work? Do you know how often press releases are referenced by Wikipedia articles? The press releases are reference for the attendee figures and my old blog post from over a year ago is a reference to the user experience. I don't mind removing that one, because it is not used to verify important facts. IT only provides an eyewitness report of an user of the system. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 18:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You are no way affiliated with this company? I mean, we know you have an interest in the affiliate market... But I will take your word for it. In any case IT only provides an eyewitness report of an user of the system. is a disingeneous statement. It provided your opinion of the system, in other words WP:OR. This is why blogs are not reliable sources, anyone can post a blog and say whatever they want. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am virtually affiliateted with everybody who is somebody in the affiliate marketing industry. Even though its growing quickly and is not as small as it used to be, lets say 5-6 years ago, is it still somewhat managable to keep track of who is who (at least the ones who matter). But the affiliation is negligible in respect to this discussion. Whatever I gained from that affiliation, is less than the time I spent on the subject at Wikipedia (if I would attach a hourly rate to it, what I don't). I was on a panel last year at the eComXpo, came to being because of somebody else who asked me to do it. eComXpo only happened to be the venue for the panel. It could have been any other industry conference as well, e.g. Affiliate Summit, Ad:tech, Search Engine Strategies, CJU, Linkshare Summit etc. I emailed John Grosshandler to get one missing figure for the article and he was surprised and asked me why I did add an article to Wikipedia. I pointed him to this post of mine [2], which illustrated some of my motivations. He said thank you, said Hi to me, when we met briefly for a minute or two at Affiliate Summit in July (again) and that's it. I did not get any money, perks or "special" speaking arrangements at his conference. I also did not asked for it, because it is not why I am here at Wikipedia. Here you have it. Detailed disclosure. If you have any questions, let me know. I made public who I am, what I do and why I do it for everybody to see. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I mention that I did not get a penny for all of this? Including the panel. Professionally engagement does not mean business relationship (where money exchanges hands). Just FYI. I mention this, because one editor is currently running around screaming "COI", "COI". Nix COI. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 11:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and close as per WP:CORP. No notability from reliable sources, out of 7 sources, 2 are press releases (the most unreliable of unreliable sources), another is from a website (WebMasterRadio.fm) affiliated (in the text of the article!) with this company, and yet another from the website of the guy who created the article in the first place. The other sources are from minor web publications focused on the industry. This page is not only a blatant advert, but basically WP:OR! Delete, we are not for WP:SOAPBOXing or for WP:OR. Thanks!--Cerejota 08:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I dispute right here that "iMedia Connections" and "AffiliateTip.com" are "minor" web publications in the affiliate marketing space. AffiliateTip.com is for example a Google News Source for a very long time, due to its importance in that industry. I would also not call "The Web Host Industry Review" a minor publication. The WebmasterRadio reference is for the fact that recordings are available for download and if you listen to the recordings, they will validate that they were broad casted on the air Live at the time of the event. Don't just pick any reference without looking at, what the reference is actually for. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 18:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Press releases are the worse kind of sources in they represent the opinion of the company about itself. Thaye are allowed as primary sources, but in this AfD they are being used to claim notability. I dispute this use of a self-serving marketing document. They can be useful in an article as a way to do "The company claims X" formulations, but in no way to claim notability, as is being done here when people claim the article is "well sourced". All I have to do is pay PRweb.com some money and they will publish whatever I want, that is precisely why press release are not reliable sources. Please re-read WP:RS and WP:CORP (which specifically bans the use of press releases and press release use by secondary sources as a way to establish notability).

As to the other sources, yes perhaps they are notable in their market niche, but notability in wikipedia is dependent on much more than that. Are they nationally notable beyond their niche? Unlike when talking about countries, in which national notability is enough, WP:CORP is very clear: Secondary sources first, then primary sources. There are no secondary sources that establish notability, none at all. Thanks!--Cerejota 22:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Last time I checked what is considered Notable and what is considered Verifiable and Reliable Sources, did it not state anywhere that an article must be of national or international importance. But even if this is your criteria, affiliate marketers generated roughly $6.5 billion in commissions last year (worldwide) and its growing. eComXpo is the largest conference (in attendance) in the space and not only has exhibitors and attendants from the United States, but from around the world, including UK, Germany, Israel and Asia. $6.5 billion is a lot, but it is a niche at the same time, if you consider that just the marketing spend in 2006 in the United States alone (offline and online) was about $615 billion. $90 billion of that was spent online. (eMarketer). $17 billion was for advertising, which includes search, email, display ads and affiliate marketing. (IAB). The biggest chunk of that is made up by search engine marketing, which started to get more main stream media coverage only recently. A bit over a year ago was it as much of a nice as affiliate marketing. Just FYI and to put things into perspective. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, perhaps speedily so. Notwithstanding the letter of the law about how exact duplication of previously required before calling this a repost, the same problems mention in the first AFD seem to be present here. Still a thinly disguised advert that's badly sourced (despite numerous requests for actual reliable sources), with no real evidence of real-world notice or impact. --Calton | Talk 12:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft noticed, but it was an advert, that they will be present at the event. I do not uses cheesy references like that to make it look good. Did you also notice, who attended and had booths there? I would consider this alone evidence of "real world notice". And again, the notability refers to the affiliate marketing industry and not everybody on earth. Please consider this context, before making your statements. Thank you. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 18:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• keep please there are many reliable sources to support this article yuckfoo 16:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There a none, closing admin should examine this false claim. There are no secondary sources that establish notability as per WP:CORP. This is not a sopabox for advertising. Thanks!--Cerejota 22:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It is not a false claim, I've just reviewed the article and there are half a dozen independent sources on the subject. Can you please elaborate? Yamaguchi先生 01:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I removed the reference to my personal blog from the article for the reasons stated above. I also added references from the Chicago Tribune (Print Edition), MSNBC, and Microsoft adCenter to the article. I assume that those publications are not considered "minor". --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 19:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I studied the sources. 1) The Microsoft ad center is a blog posting. This is far from reliable, even if it s from Microsoft, and is in fact a primary source of Microsoft participating in a event: Microsoft participates in hundreds of such events around the world daily, so this hardly establishes notability. 2) MSNBC and Chicago Tribune articles are both clearly primary sources based on press releases and/or direct interviews, which do not establish notability: newspapers and news media frequently report on small companies as a way to provide filler. WP:CORP requires secondary source notability, and not a single secondary source (albeit multiple sources are required) is provided. None of the sources meet this criteria, and the arguments connecting the different primary sources are WP:SYNTH original research. Again, corporations and organizations must meet special criteria for notability as per WP:CORP, and this is not being met, and your attempts at WP:SYNTH only increase the reasons to delete: not only it fully violates WP:CORP but it is also original research. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

commment The MSNBC and Chicago Tribune use also content from press releases, but it is not a republished press release, which would not matter much, but I wanted to state that. That is what press releases are for! They are for the press, that they can pick it up, validate the facts and write a story about it (which is often only a slightly modified version of a press release). This is how the majority of content in the media is created. It might be (most likely be) channeled through a big news agency such as Reuthers first, but it boils down to the same thing. Not every press release is being picked up by the media though. Actually most press releases are not. The media only picks the ones they believe to be NOTEWORTHY!. Just FYI, in case you did not know who things work in that business. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 09:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what knowledge we have of the process in abny business. WP:CORP sets the barrier of notability higher than usual precisely because of knowledge of how the business works. However, I do happen to have professional knowledge in this respect, and know that articles solely containing press release information are used as filler (as I already stated), and hence are unreliable markers for notability. I ask again, please provide secondary sources that establish notability. All you get is primary sources steeming from the same press releases. Simple media interest is not the same as (although it is part of) notability.Please re-read and study WP:CORP, you seem to continue to miss its criteria. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that is very much important for WP:CORP. A press release on the companies website is not enough to make the company notable as per WP:CORP (the ones in the article that fall under this category were also not meant to establish notability, but are reference for some of the statements made in the article, just FYI). If a larger and well respected publisher of the news media picks up a story based on a press release, then adds its own comments to it (or not) and publishes it, notability is established. They picked that story out of hundreds of stories they could choose from every day, checked the material and considered it important enough to be publicized online and/or in print. They established notability for the subject. Your personal opinion is irrelevant. Its an encyclopedia, remember?! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Your reading of WP:CORP is incorrect: secondary sourcing as defined by WP:RS is clear in that a simple newspaper article is not sufficient. It must be an article that goes beyond republishing a press release. A simple mention doesn't cut it. If we were to include every corporation that gets mentioned in the media, we would become a business directory, which we are not. Precisely because we are an encyclopedia you must understand why this content is not encyclopedic and notable, corporations mentioned here should have transcendental importance as market leader is mass markets, or in fields that are highly notable, or meet other criteria that warrants encyclopedic coverage. In this case that criteria is simply not met, and your highly novel interpretation of what constitutes a secondary source is very interesting but ultimately fallacious. You are applying to a corporation the criteria we apply to individuals, which is patently incorrect. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

On a side note regarding the MS blog. A blog happens to be the publishing medium of choice by all major search engines. Where content is published is not important if it is about Verifyability. As you might noticed, the post at the MS blog stated "Microsoft adCenter is a premier sponsor of this event". This verifies statements made by eComXpo themselves (which is not considered a verification of their own claims), that companies like Microsoft have strong interest in the event and even became premium sponsors of the event. They don't do that for any use group or irrelevant conference nobody in the industry even heart of, that happens to discuss search marketing. References in the article have multiple purposes. They have to establish notability and verify the claims made in the article to show that it is not original research and that the stated figures are actually real facts. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the secondary problem with the article. What you just did is called synthesis, a form of original research. It is taking source A and source B and arriving at conclusion C, like you do above. Since the entire article is built in this fashion, creating a novel narrative not supported by secondary sources, that alone is a reason for deletion.

I did? Please elaborate. I think that the article misses some nice flow to make it better readable. Its currently mearly a collection of facts and statements from other sources. I assume that this is also the reason why somebody believed that this is a repost of a deleted article. I did not write the article that was deleted. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 11:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

However, you seem to be confused about blogs. WP:RS specifically says that all blogs are unreliable sources, and are to be handled with care, and only as primary sources. Microsoft's blog is a blog, and hence an unreliable primary source, and cannot be used, at all for WP:CORP notability. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not correct, at least not anymore. There were a number of debates going on regarding this, especially since more and more publications use a blog as the medium of choice for online publishing. Some reputable publications switched to the blog format entirely already and other stated using it in addition to their existing software (e.g. WSJ and NYT). This discussion needed to come to a consensus during the nomination of the Search Engine Optimization article for Featured Article (it's a FA now). This was necessary, because the majority of publications being made in the search engine marketing space (and internet marketing industry in general) is done via a blogging platform of some sort today. Blogs today are more than simple "weblogs" and personal diaries. Wikipedia had to adjust the related guidelines e.g. WP:V and WP:RS among others to adapt to the changing reality. You can start at the [article nomination discussion] and then follow the references to discussions elsewhere from there to learn more about this. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 11:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject appears to be notable within its niche, and is adequately referenced with non-trivial and reliable sources, thus satisfying WP:N requirements. Yamaguchi先生 01:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:N is irrelevant here. Applicable policy is WP:CORP. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep subject is well referenced... too damn much in list form rather than paragraph form... but that requires a cleanup not a deletion.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well referenced? It isn't. Thanks!--Cerejota 08:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It appears well-referenced to me as well. Sniping every other comment isn't winning you any points here. We all understood your position 10 edits ago. Burntsauce 16:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is more than reasonably referenced, attributing multiple reliable sources. Cerejota has argued that blogs are not to be used as sources, and although this article no longer relies on such sources, there are mitigating factors which do allow blogs and even Usenet articles as sources. Take a look at the James D. Nicoll article, as well as the state it was in when I nominated it for deletion [3] and the discussion surrounding it. Even I can see past all the stammering, stomping, and hand waving here and acknowledge that this subject is worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Burntsauce 17:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. --Myles Long 14:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, looks well referenced to me as well. Subject notable within its niche. bbx 02:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.